While many pundits on the right have been whispering that blackmail may have been involved in the Petraeus scandal, Charles Krauthammer, Tuesday on Fox News’s Special Report didn’t mince words, saying what everyone with working brain cells is thinking: “Of course it was being held over Petraeus’s head, and the sword was lowered on Election Day. You don’t have to be a cynic to see that as the ultimate in cynicism. As long as they needed him to give the administration line to quote Bill, everybody was silent. And as soon as the election’s over, as soon as he can be dispensed with, the sword drops and he’s destroyed. I mean, can you imagine what it’s like to be on that pressure and to think it didn’t distort or at least in some way unconsciously influence his testimony? That’s hard to believe,” he said.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think the really shocking news today was that General Petraeus thought and hoped he could keep his job. He thought that it might and it would be kept secret, and that he could stay in his position. I think what that tells us is really important. It meant that he understood that the FBI obviously knew what was going on. He was hoping that those administration officials would not disclose what had happened, and therefore hoping that he would keep his job. And that meant that he understood that his job, his reputation, his legacy, his whole celebrated life was in the hands of the administration, and he expected they would protect him by keeping it quiet.

And that brings us to the ultimate issue, and that is his testimony on September 13. That’s the thing that connects the two scandals, and that’s the only thing that makes the sex scandal relevant. Otherwise it would be an exercise in sensationalism and voyeurism and nothing else. The reason it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in its hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he’d heard from his station chief in Tripoli, and with everything that we had heard. Was he influenced by the fact that he knew his fate was held by people within the administration at that time?

Fox News is also reporting that Obama will be holding a press conference tomorrow afternoon to answer questions about Benghazi, and oooooh-wee! He’ll be taking questions from the media, so woot! woot! We’re really gonna get to the bottom of this, now, eh?

Of course it will be a pathetic farce – the White House feels like they have all their ducks in a row, now, I’m guessing. They’ve come up with a story, (and it doesn’t even have to be a plausible story – it can be absurd on its face) – and they know their media lapdogs will lap it up. (See Your Guide To Understanding the Media for the Next Four Years for further edification.)

Here is POLITICO’s cheat sheet of questions that the president is likely to face:

1. Do you believe the FBI should have told you and Congress sooner about the investigation that led Gen. Petraeus to resign?

They’re so in the tank for this boob their first question already assumes he had no knowledge and allows him to play the victim. So to summarize: Don’t expect a single tough question. Besides, he’d never answer them anyway. Here’s a very simple question for the esteemed press corps: Why did you repeatedly lie that the terror attack in Benghazi was a protest against a video nobody ever saw and why is the maker of that clip in prison?

Jammie, Jammie, Jammie….do you not know that all the smart journalists already know the answer to that question? He called the attack “an act of terror” in the Rose garden on Sept. 12 – ask CNN’s Candy Crowley – she knows. Duh. All references to the video were due to the best intelligence the White House had at the time *cough* Petraeus* *cough* and the matter is under investigation. They’ll let us know the result in a year or so when the investigation is completed.

The video maker is in prison because he’s a shady Middle Eastern operator who needs to be kept quiet he committed parole violations.

Here are some questions Obama can answer today. What did he and Panetta and Biden talk about during that 5:00 meeting at the White House, and what did Obama do for the rest of the evening? Did he happen to make it to the Situation Room to watch the attack on TV as it was streamed live? Or did he just go straight to bed after dinner so he could be ready for his big trip to Las Vegas the next day?

While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton boozes it up in Australia and the Pentagon grapples with more floozy eruptions, outraged military families are still waiting for answers about the forgotten 9/14 attack on Camp Bastion.

Muckrakers and distraction engineers are having a front-page field day with the so-called “sex scandal.” But for surviving relatives and colleagues of heroic Marine Lt. Col. Christopher Raible and Sgt. Bradley Atwell, it’s the national security scandal at Afghanistan’s Camp Bastion that deserves headline coverage.

There’s been a virtual blackout of the alarming story in the national press. As I reported last month, the meticulously coordinated siege by 15 Taliban infiltrators — dressed in American combat fatigues and armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons — resulted not only in two deaths, but also in the most devastating loss of U.S. airpower since Vietnam. Six Harrier jets were destroyed; three refueling stations were wiped out; six hangars were damaged.

The attack came exactly six months after a failed suicide attack targeting Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and three days after the deadly attack on our consulate in Benghazi.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus has agreed to testify about the Libya terror attack before the House and Senate intelligence committees, Fox News has learned.Petraeus had originally been scheduled to testify this Thursday on the burgeoning controversy over the deadly Sept. 11 attack. That appearance was scuttled, though, after the director abruptly resigned over an extramarital affair.

No word yet on when he’ll be able to appear to testify before Congress.

I think Krauthammer is exactly right on this. Petraeus thought that he would save his job and reputation once the FBI seemed to conclude that nothing criminal had transpired. But the FBI alone would not have been able to make guarantees that nothing would happen to him. “Someone” had to make assurances to him that they would try and keep the lid on everything and he had nothing to worry about. He towed the company line, when he briefed on 9-12 and attributed the violence to the video.
His expiration date and usefulness came and went on the evening of 6 November ’12.